Combatting Illicit Tobacco Bill 2026; Second Reading

Claydon supported the unamended bill, stating it addressed concerns from local shop owners and families about organised crime and unregulated products. Claydon argued the legislation strengthened enforcement powers, increased penalties for repeat offenders, and improved coordination between agencies. Claydon emphasised that illicit tobacco undermined public health progress and disadvantaged honest businesses competing on an uneven playing field.

France supported the bill, highlighting the rise in vaping among young people and the significant profits made by criminal syndicates. France argued that reducing excise would increase smoking rates and health costs, contrary to public health goals. France detailed government investments in border force capabilities and the establishment of an illicit tobacco commissioner to coordinate national responses.

Penfold supported the bill but criticised it as inadequate given the scale of the illicit trade. Penfold argued that high excise rates imposed by the government had increased the cost difference between lawful and unlawful tobacco, driving consumers to the black market. Penfold called for stronger enforcement actions and better coordination with state governments to disrupt criminal supply chains and address the structural issues created by current policy settings.

Smith commended the bill for protecting legitimate tobacconists and disrupting organised crime networks. Smith highlighted the importance of resetting the risk-to-reward calculation for criminals by increasing penalties and expanding proceeds-of-crime powers. Smith noted successful local enforcement actions and government funding for border interceptions as evidence of the strategy's effectiveness.

Ryan described the illicit tobacco trade as a major criminal market but argued that poor policy settings had created a large black market. Ryan moved amendments calling for a ban on political donations from the tobacco industry, citing concerns about industry influence and lobbying. Ryan warned against cutting excise taxes, noting it would harm public health, but questioned whether further increases would reduce smoking or simply enrich criminals.

Ambihaipahar supported the bill as a necessary reform to combat organised crime and protect public health. Ambihaipahar argued that the legislation strengthened investigative powers and increased penalties to match the seriousness of illicit tobacco offences. Ambihaipahar emphasised the importance of intergovernmental cooperation and highlighted government investments in border enforcement and the illicit tobacco commissioner role.

Chaney supported the bill, noting the rise in smoking and vaping rates among young people and the threat posed by the illicit market. Chaney seconded the amendment to ban tobacco industry political donations, citing concerns about industry influence on public health policy. Chaney argued that enforcement must be matched by transparent public health measures free from industry capture.

lead

Moncrieff supported the bill, arguing that illicit tobacco has become a major organised crime issue, with estimates suggesting 50 to 60 per cent of tobacco sold is illegal. Moncrieff stated the legislation increases penalties and investigative powers, such as telecommunications interception, to disrupt criminal networks and seize profits. Moncrieff highlighted government investments, including $346 million for the Australian Border Force and the appointment of an Illicit Tobacco and E-cigarette Commissioner. Moncrieff emphasised that higher penalties allow access to stronger surveillance tools and that the bill aims to rebalance the risk-reward equation for criminals.

Violi argued the bill was inadequate and would not significantly impact the illicit tobacco crisis, citing the government's own explanatory memorandum which stated no substantial new powers were introduced. Violi described the legislation as insufficient given the scale of organised crime and firebombings in Victoria. Violi attributed the crisis to high excise rates creating a price disparity that fuels illegal trade and noted the negative impact on legitimate retailers and communities.

Witty supported the bill, stating it addresses the link between illicit tobacco, organised crime, and public safety concerns in Melbourne. Witty highlighted the economic value of the illicit market and the violence associated with it, including firebombings that affect neighbouring businesses. Witty emphasised the importance of national coordination and strengthening proceeds-of-crime laws to target criminal profits and disrupt supply chains.

Conaghan opposed the bill, arguing it was weak and failed to address the business model of organised crime groups. Conaghan claimed the illicit tobacco market had grown to 80 per cent under the current government and attributed this to high excise rates. Conaghan suggested that reducing excise and establishing a standalone enforcement agency would be more effective than the proposed legislative changes.

Khalil supported the bill, describing it as a measure to restore the rule of law and combat organised crime violence, such as firebombings in his electorate. Khalil argued the legislation expands law enforcement powers and increases penalties to deter criminal activity. Khalil highlighted government funding for border enforcement and the appointment of a commissioner to coordinate national efforts against illicit tobacco and vaping products.

Wilson supported the bill in principle but criticised it as inadequate, arguing the crisis was a direct result of government policy, including high excise and plain packaging. Wilson compared the situation to prohibition, suggesting it drove lawful citizens into illegal markets and fuelled organised crime. Wilson claimed the bill did not address the root causes of the illicit trade and the resulting violence against small businesses.

Templeman supported the bill, noting that previous government measures had failed to stop the growth of the illicit market. Templeman highlighted state-level actions, such as closure orders for non-compliant shops, and federal efforts to enhance border enforcement and intelligence sharing. Templeman emphasised the importance of disrupting criminal profits and coordinating efforts across jurisdictions to make the trade less profitable.

Webster opposed the bill, arguing it was too little and too late, and blamed the government for creating a black-market crisis through high excise and distorted nicotine rules. Webster cited statistics showing a rise in illicit tobacco consumption and highlighted the public health costs and impact on regional communities. Webster claimed the bill failed to address the policy settings that drove the market underground and allowed organised crime to thrive.

lead

Gregg supported the bill, arguing it addresses the serious organised crime threat posed by the illicit tobacco trade. Gregg stated the legislation rebalances the risk-reward ratio for criminals by increasing penalties and expanding law enforcement powers, including surveillance capabilities. Gregg emphasised that the trade harms communities through violence and increased insurance costs for legitimate businesses. Gregg rejected calls to cut excise, asserting that strong enforcement and consistent laws are required to dismantle criminal networks.

shadow minister

Small argued that punitive excise taxes drive consumers to the black market, creating a crisis that enforcement alone cannot fix. Small cited historical examples of tax evasion and noted that legal cigarette prices are significantly higher than illicit ones. Small called for a substantial reduction in tobacco excise to narrow the price gap and reduce the profitability of criminal operations. Small warned that the current approach makes ordinary Australians criminals and diverts police resources from more serious offences.

Wallace stated the coalition supports the bill but views it as an incomplete response to a crisis exacerbated by high excise taxes. Wallace argued that lost revenue amounts to billions of dollars and that the government has failed to implement a comprehensive national strategy. Wallace called for stronger enforcement, better intelligence sharing, and the use of tax evasion powers to dismantle criminal networks. Wallace emphasised that penalties are ineffective without a higher likelihood of detection and prosecution.

Georganas supported the bill, describing the illicit tobacco trade as a severe threat to public health and community safety. Georganas cited specific incidents of arson and violence in his electorate, including attacks on innocent businesses. Georganas argued that the legislation strengthens penalties and proceeds-of-crime powers to disrupt criminal enterprises. Georganas stressed the need for coordinated action across all levels of government to protect communities and reduce smoking rates.

Willcox supported the bill but criticised it as too little, too late, arguing that high excise taxes created the black market. Willcox highlighted the violence and collateral damage caused by turf wars, citing specific arson attacks in his electorate. Willcox called for immediate store closures, asset forfeiture, and an independent review of excise settings. Willcox argued that the bill focuses on paper penalties rather than providing sufficient resources for frontline enforcement.

Roberts supported the bill, noting the alarming growth of illicit tobacco and vaping products in her community. Roberts argued the legislation increases penalties and expands investigative powers to tackle sophisticated criminal networks. Roberts emphasised the importance of targeting criminal profits and improving information sharing between agencies. Roberts stated the bill protects public health, supports legitimate businesses, and restores confidence in law enforcement.

Spender supported the bill but argued it is insufficient to address the scale of the illicit tobacco crisis. Spender noted that smoking rates have risen and that illicit products now dominate the market, undermining public health and revenue. Spender called for a comprehensive approach including excise reviews, stricter retail licensing, and better resourcing for border and state enforcement. Spender warned that enforcement alone cannot close the wide price gap between legal and illegal products.

lead

Teesdale argued that the bill reverses the risk-reward calculation for criminals involved in the illicit tobacco trade. Teesdale cited reports indicating that illicit tobacco constitutes a large portion of the market, generating billions in profit for organised crime groups. Teesdale emphasised the severe health impacts of smoking, noting higher smoking rates in Tasmania compared to the national average. Teesdale stated that the bill strengthens legal frameworks, increases penalties to up to 15 years imprisonment, and expands proceeds-of-crime tools to disrupt supply chains. Teesdale rejected the notion that reducing excise would solve the problem, asserting that enforcement and public health measures are essential.

Rebello argued that high excise taxes are the primary driver of the illicit tobacco market, forcing addicted smokers to purchase cheaper illegal products. Rebello noted that while reported smoking rates have dropped, wastewater testing indicates increased nicotine consumption, suggesting a shift to the black market. Rebello criticised the government for delaying the appointment of the Illicit Tobacco and E-Cigarette Commissioner and for slow funding of the national disruption group. Rebello highlighted the negative impact on legitimate small businesses, citing attacks on over 130 retailers across the country.